Over the past 10 years I've lived in two battleground states, first Missouri and now Florida (lucky me!), and in both my former city (Kansas City) and current city (Tampa/St. Petersburg), Palin's performance in last night's debate went over like a lead balloon, at least as far as the editorial boards of the local newspapers in these two cites are concerned. "Incoherent," "inarticulate" and "superficial" are just some of the adjectives used to describe last night's version of Palin by the St. Petersburg Times and the Kansas City Star.
Both papers praised Biden for offering brief, specific, pointed answers to the questions and for showing a strong command of the issues. With Palin, not so much.
First Palin problem: She, um, didn't answer the questions. When the entire purpose of a political debate is for political candidates to answer questions, Palin decided that somehow she was special and didn't have to do that. She could just talk about whatever she wanted to talk about. Ducking the questions might play well with the hard-core Republican base, but it doesn't play well with most voters, trust me, particularly with independents and even more so with undecided voters who want answers from the candidates to help them make up their minds. As the KC Star points out:
Palin signaled her strategy early on when she informed Biden that "I may not answer the questions the way you and the moderator want to hear..." Translation: She wasn’t going to answer the questions asked. But the American people deserved straight answers to moderator Gwen Ifill’s straightforward questions, and many times they didn’t get them from Palin.
FAIL!
Second Palin problem: She didn't make sense. Even when Palin decided to answer a question, it was difficult to know what she was talking about. Yes, Palin was able to put words together into sentences, and she was able to look into the camera at the right time, point her finger at Biden on cue, and even wink at us (how cute!). But if you ignored the beauty-pageant flash she was presenting, there often was no there there, as the St. Pete Times points out in its no-holds-barred assessment:
Palin often talked in circles. In one sentence, she declared "darn right it was the predator lenders'' who have caused the economic crisis. Then she talked about the need for more regulatory oversight. Then she talked about the need for people to be responsible and avoid getting into debt.
At other points, she was absolutely incoherent. She lost herself in a rambling response about nuclear weapons. She was inarticulate at best about the causes of global warming — probably because she previously has questioned whether humans have contributed to the problem. Responded Biden: "I think it is man-made. ... If you don't understand what the cause is, it's virtually impossible to come up with a solution."
The Star also calls out Palin for talking in circles and sometimes contradicting herself:
Her talk of a stronger government role in some areas seemed at odds with her rhetoric about the need for government to "get out of the way." At one point she called for both increasing government spending (to build up infrastructure) and reining it in (no specifics).
FAIL!
Third Palin problem: She offered no specifics. If you talk to voters, particularly undecided voters, they always say they don't get enough specifics from the candidates. (I often find this so annoying, particularly when a voter says this about Obama. All they have to do is get off their lazy butt and go to his website. But I digress). And any voter looking for specifics from Sarah Palin on how she'd handle just about any issue surely came away from the debate disappointed. We'll pick this up with the Times:
Here is the extent of Palin's explanation of energy policy. When Biden referred to Republican chants of "drill! drill! drill!'', Palin corrected him. "The chant is, 'drill, baby, drill,' '' she said.
Her message on the Iraq war was similarly simplistic. She said it would be a "travesty if we quit now in Iraq'' — which no one advocates. And Obama's call for a gradual withdrawal of troops, she said, is waving a white flag of surrender. Such responses lack depth or a grasp of reality.
FAIL!
In conclusion, first the Times:
Biden was the clear winner of the only debate between the candidates for vice president. But the night was really about Palin, who on Monday will visit Clearwater. She proved to be disarmingly charming. When she's not fumbling for specifics or repeating generalities about fighting big government, opposing taxes and embracing patriotism, her folksy cadence sounds warm and approachable. It's clear why she connects with many Republicans eager to hear from someone who sounds familiar and informal.
But the Alaska governor said nothing to reassure Americans she is prepared to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
The Star:
In the end, however, Biden’s deep knowledge of domestic and foreign policy easily trumped Palin’s often superficial presentations.
Too often Palin, the Republican, retreated to rally language and platitudes about her running mate, John McCain.
Biden, the Democrat, did a better job of providing specifics about how he and his running mate, Barack Obama, would perform in office...
But Palin’s dodges and gaps in knowledge gave little indication that she is ready to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.
That "heartbeat away from the presidency" notion seems to really scare the pants off of people when they think about Palin. And last night's debate did nothing to change that, in Missouri, Florida or anywhere else.